CharonY

In Canada that has also been a bit of an push (provincially) to dismantle the single-payer system.

I will also add that Europe is not a political monolith with quite significant differences in social policies (though the US sticks out with its healthcare system). Also, especially homelessness is a poor example, in the US it is actually fairly low (0.18%). Of course, there can be issues in how homeless folks are counted and collected data can be out of date. But that being said, the US is comparable to France (0.22%). Canada is doing worse with 0.36%. Germany has higher levels (0.41%) and UK is around 1%. However the latter countries also include folks threatened by homelessness or in extreme unsecure conditions, which will skew the levels upward.

It depends largely what we are talking about. Very simple (and somewhat thin) organs, like bladders might be in those timeline. But complex organs in which multiple tissues are involved in dynamic processes are still mostly at the dream stage. The strength of 3D bioprinting is really to create shapes, and even then the mechanical stability can be challenging. Making them move and do complicated stuff reliably, that is the really, really hard part.

While true, some of the issues will be similar. The Brazilian devaluation and the inability to respond to that was at least one factor in ending convertibility, for example. Switching the currency entirely would make an exit really difficult (if not impossible).

IIRC Argentine pegged their Pesos against USD in the 90s (because of hyperinflation). One could look at the outcomes then.

Number 0, I am thinking of getting a psych eval. Seeing and talking to higher beings is something that would be worry me quite a bit. Especially combined with thinking of shooting as the first action.

Polling on perceived economic and crime situation suggest that facts don't really matter anymore, assuming they ever did.

Ok, so there is at least some hints regarding pipetting errors in the qPCR (a delta of 1 is about a 2-fold change, which should not be happening in replicates). But obviously that does not seem to be an issue with the GAPDH. Obviously, we do not know if it is realistic whether your target is about 1000-fold different in abundance and that the differences are caused by differential extraction (I would consider it somewhat unlikely though). Main things I would suspect fall into the area of sample handling, and potential assay issues. So a few things to check include: - quality of mRNA samples - was it a 2-step? Can there be issues there? - are the protocols well-established for the specific primer combinations? What are the PCR efficiencies for them? - is there a possibility of contamination? What levels do you typically have for an extract of your control sample? - is there a possibility of degradation?

First, let me apologize for not downloading a document from a first time poster due to security concerns. But I think most of the issues can be diagnosed within a post (or screenshots, if needed). The differences you are seeing are massive (about 1000-fold) so there is good chance that we are not looking at a biological but rather an analytical and/or pre-analytical issue. House-keeping genes are not really that universal as they are sometimes claimed to be, but that level of change is extremely unusual. So the most likely scenarios are issues during sample prep and/or the qPCR itself. You mentioned that the ct of your gene of interest remained stable. What is the ct/cq? The next thing to look at is to inspect your curves, do you have stable amplification for all your targets? Are you using probes? If not, you could inspect melting curves. Also, what is the variance of your results?

It is also a bit misleading, as cell types are not fixed an can become different things at different times. Mapping is a snapshot in time, but if want to understand functions, we also need to understand the underlying dynamics (for starters).

Religions are big business and have been for many centuries (varying to degrees by region and religion a bit perhaps). It was way before the Soviet Union (or even Russia) existed.

Generally speaking these simplification do not do the complexity real justice. Every single cell has more different processes going on in parallel than even the most complex factory. Thinking about scope, we got about 30-ish trillion cells in our body. I.e. if you equated one cell with one factory, our body would be the the equivalent of 30 trillion factories. In the world there are only about 10 million factories. Or compare it to the about 100-400 billion stars in the Milky Way. These are orders of magnitude off. Our brain alone has about 80-ish billion neurons and roughly a similar number of glial cells so whatever scale you are thinking about, you likely have to expand it by a fair bit more.

Compared to other areas, being famous is less of an issue. We always fall back to data and experiments. Ultimately, even if folks do get defensive, the self-correction kicks in eventually. In other areas this is more commonly not the case. I.e., the system is not perfect, but at least better than elsewhere.

I think pretty much all pesticides are bad for health to various degrees to begin with.

So, the conventional wisdom is that if you shorten the treatment you can promote the selection of resistant bacteria. Generally speaking there is a minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) at which they inhibit bacterial growth which is dependent on the strain, but can also be influenced by their growth condition (in the lab standardized media are used to measure MIC, which might not be exactly the same in the body). Now if the effective concentration of the compound drops below MIC, the effects are actually a little bit weird. If you look at defined cultures, e.g. mixing non-resistant with resistant bacteria, you still see a selective effect. But if you take a more complex sample, say fecal cultures or wastewater, the studies have been quite mixed whether there is a selective pressure (and/or there are other factors that would override it). It is fairly fascinating, actually.

The answer is for the most part, we do not know. Pharma companies have to provide expiration date based on specific testing regimen, that vary by region. But roughly, they are stored at specified conditions and then tested for quality and purity after time has expired. So if a company wants to claim e.g. a 3yr shelf life, they have to provide test data for samples that shows that the quality is maintained for at least 3 years. There are also accelerated schemes (usually only allowed for claimed stability times of less than 3 years, I believe) where samples are stored at what is called accelerated temperature (to increase degradation rate). Samples are analyzed at set intervals and based on that information manufacturer have to show what the maximum time is where they ensure no drop in quality. Unfortunately that data is generally not publicly available, AFAIK, so we cannot really project stability much. That being said, these estimates are conservative (as they have to show no difference between the beginning and whatever expiry date they want to submit). And degradation is rarely sudden. So even after expiry there is usually a fair amount of potency left, that drops over time. The one thing to look out for is if there are known degradation products that might be harmful, and there was some discussion about that surrounding tetracycline, for example (but as far as I recall it was no clearly linked to the drug).

I have answered that before and also explained why there are generally no such studies (or very few). You cannot easily prove a negative. The papers that I shared have shown the link between bacterial infections and cancers, and the fact that AB treatment reduces risk. I have also already mentioned that long-term AB treatment is associated with increased cancer risk. And again, the reason why we accept this risk is because the dangers are higher of not treating it. And you can again repeat the claim that this does not satisfy you and I can again repeat that this is how medical treatments work, you choose the lesser poison. And then I am going again to point to the paper in the 90s where they follow-up folks some 30k folks for 7 years and did not find elevated risks and then you will say that this does not satisfy you and demand a better study. And then I will say again that you are missing the point, as all medications are dangerous and harmful to various levels and you have to look at medical outcomes (again pointing to long-term risks of cancer and other diseases during AB treatments). If health risks of H. pylori were unchanged after AB treatment, ABs should not be indicated. And if there are other ABs that are equally effective with fewer known harms (and again, this could be just because they have not been found yet...) they would generally be used instead (but from what I know, resistance patterns are often what determines the selection nowadays). And yes, sometimes it takes a while for the regulators to change recommendations, but so far there has been no smoking gun to show worse outcome in folks taking the treatment. And then we probably start the next page with again the same arguments. So unless there is a new argument coming I see this issue as resolved (if not to your satisfaction, but so is life).

Scroll up to the papers I provided as a starting point. But to repeat myself:- antibiotics regimen have shown overall reduction in cancer risk, including metronidazole treatment (though not specifically testing for that). Combined with the fact that earlier studies in humans did not showed a strong effect, suggest that the relative higher risk is to have H. pylori infections. Since you might also have missed it, the treatment is selected by multiple indicators, including local resistance, potential side effects/allergies and so on.

This is so bad. +1

That seems like a very slanted reading of the situation. For starters, Hamas ended up with more seats due to the electoral system, but overall they barely had more votes compared to Fatah. As we all know, Hamas then later on seized power and murdered their opposition. Inquisitive might then ask the question why folks elected Hamas instead of building those beautiful beaches. Well, for starters many Palestinians viewed the Fatah as corrupt, anti-Western sentiments were high due to their support for Israel, the occupation of the West Bank continued. Hamas stoked these sentiments, they cast themselves as the principled faction (make Palestine great again) that are not subservice to Israeli dominance. A general sentiment was that Fatah was toothless and Israel would be unwilling to negotiate with them anyway (and Hamas fostered that sentiment by conducting suicide bombings which turned Israel away from negotiations). In a way it is ironic that the Bush administration and Hamas were pushing for elections, whereas the Fatah and Israel lobbied against due to the rising influence of Hamas. Some articles around that time have indicated that especially the younger section of Gazans were not that politically motivated, but they were driven by disillusion. Probably similar sentiments that resulted in Brexit. Things obviously changed once Hamas started their brutal takeover and resulting isolation. Now switching to the West Bank we do see some economic benefits and a rise of a middle-class, supported by NGOs. Yet unemployment started to rise since 2000 and remain high, and they are under the continuous whim of Israeli settlement policies. Gaza then is used as a whip to keep them in line. At several points including in 2014, Hamas was severely weakened, but Netanyahu and the Israeli right-wing faction essentially cast them lifelines to keep the West Bank in check. Under these circumstances it is hard not to understand why the Palestinians think that Israel has too much influence over their lives.

It clearly isn't. You will note that folks here are for the most part saying that the response even to that massacre perpetuated by Hamas is not justified. The deaths and violence in the West Bank has been mentioned a few times. What folks object to is taking sides in a situation with no moral high ground. This is not the same as endorsing any of the violent actions. The contrary, actually.

I think there are generational changes happening that society is not really realizing and methodologies might not be adjusting to it yet. On the small scale we are seeing things like loss of attention and ability to read longer or more complex texts, but I suspect there are more complicated things going on (beyond the usual stuff related to getting old and complaining about the new generation).

Specifically targeting vulnerable folks, even. I think that there is an assumption that a prior atrocity is a legitimate justification for any forms of atrocities that follow, which seems like an attempt of moral justification. This is also an excuse made by authoritarian and violent regimes in order to justify their action and wash themselves off any moral responsibility. I will note that the Nazis used self-defense as an excuse to exterminate Jews. Now in the case of the Palestinians the current situation is clearly untenable and the situation in the West Bank especially in recent times has clearly shown the attempt of Netanyahu's government to further marginalize them. While there are clashes with casualties on both sides, there is little doubt who holds the bigger cudgel and Palestinian children have died due to settler violence. This all pales now to the situation in Gaza, but taking a bold stance with endorsing unlimited violence against no-combatants is not the right way.

As mentioned before, all things considered it should be astonishing that Trump is in the race at all. But then the world has turned into a dark comedy with an idiotic script.

In an interview with Hamas leadership, it was re-affirmed that the violence and deaths are the goal to reignite broader violence for the Palestinian cause https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/world/middleeast/hamas-israel-gaza-war.html?smid=url-share What kind of disqualifies them as freedom fighters is the fact that they are a) killing non-combatants and b) sacrificing their own people to elevate their cause.